Book of Revelation, The

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Jun 2000 by Luter, A Boyd

The Book of Revelation. By G. K. Beale. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999, lxiv 1245 pp., $75.00.

Biblical commentaries have increased dramatically in size recently. If Beale's massive tome had appeared a decade earlier, its little-short-of awe-inspiring breadth and depth would likely have set it apart as "dominant" within that period (perhaps even a generation) of evangelical commentary publishing on the Apocalypse. Instead, it emerged in an environment that had already seen Thomas's two-volume (1992, '95) dispensational treatment, which is almost as long as Beale's, and Aune's critically speculative three-volume (1997,'98,'98) WBC contribution, which is about 300 pages longer. So, in a publishing arena filling with such "heavy-weights" (i.e. mega-commentaries), a few readable "bantam-weights" (e.g. Talbert [1994] and Michaels [1997]) and some varied "middle-weights" (e.g. Mounce's NICNT revision [1998] and Easley's Holman NT Commentary offering [1999]), Beale's work must carve out whatever niche it will have (i.e. in terms of long-term staying power, after the initial publication buzz dies down) in other ways.

That should present no real problem, though, since Beale's commentary exhibits a host of strengths. Perhaps the place to start, though, is in regard to Beale's background for writing this huge commentary. I do not believe that it is an overstatement to assert that G. K. Beale is the most qualified evangelical to comment on Revelation in this generation. Appearing since 1980, including his published Cambridge dissertation on the use of Daniel in Revelation (University Press of America, 1984), has been the programmatic publication of over 20 of Beale's articles, entries, books, or significant reviews related to the Apocalypse.

The commentary has many notable strengths. First, we can highlight the extensive bibliography (36 pages, but still not as exhaustive as Aune's). It is well balanced, far more so than Aune's, which, with a few exceptions, displays but a "loud silence" with regard to evangelical scholarship on the Apocalypse, including virtually ignoring Beale's many substantial contributions; conversely, Beale's listing includes ten of Aune's works. The lone quibble here is that, by the time Beale's volume was released, the bibliography was essentially three years out of date (more below). Second, for the most part, the excellent introductory essays range wider than most commentary introductions. Some are merely workmanlike (e.g. "Date" and "Authorship"), but most are extraordinary, definitely ranking with the best treatments I have seen (e.g. "Situation, Purpose and Theme," "Genre," "Use of the OT," "Structure and Plan," and "Rev. 1:19 as an Interpretative Key"). In a couple of noteworthy cases ("Text and "Grammar"), Beale's material is at least as accessible and insightful as Aune's, although more compact. Third, numerous and varied charts dot the introductory material and almost always visualize the relevant material well. Fourth, smaller print signals technical excursuses that often reflect Beale's strength in relation to extra-Biblical sources. Fifth, since the series editors' foreword (p. xvii) states that the NIGTC volumes are "to provide a theological understanding of the text," Beale is to be congratulated for laying out the most sustained and compelling case for amillennialism (Beale prefers the title "inaugurated millennialism," p. 973) from Revelation that I have ever read. Though it falls short of being ultimately persuasive, in my estimation, it undoubtedly will persuade quite a few readers.

Having highlighted these positive aspects of Beale's work, there are several more-- than-trifling concerns that should be registered. First, it becomes fairly clear that a number of the introductory essays link up to present a comprehensive argument for Beale's theological position. As stated above, this is generally a strength. However, the foreword assumes the theology will be "based on historical-critical-linguistic exegesis" (p. xvii; italics mine). Therein lies the rub. Since Beale's interwoven essays prove somewhat selective exegetically, often more topical/thematic in nature and very far-reaching in their conclusions and implications, it seems fair to say that the introductory material subtly reorients the commentary from the expected developing inductive methodology to closer to a deductive approach. This does not mean there is not verse-by-verse exegesis in the commentary proper. But, frankly, surprisingly little in any of the crucial passages is really "fresh," given the involved discussions in the introductory material. For the most part, Beale's "front-end load" theological conclusions are virtually regurgitated later with more detailed argumentation.

Second, a close reading of Beale's brief and vague apologetic for his eclectic "modified idealism" (p. 49) alongside his stimulating essay on "Interpretation of Symbolism" (pp. 50-69) raises a red flag. This is because Beale's eclectic "modification" of the historically problematic idealist approach (typically leading to free-wheeling allegorization) which supposedly shuts the traditional "front door" to allegorical interpretation of the Apocalypse, is still at its heart idealism. And his "four levels of communication" (pp. 52-55) subtly but effectively leave open the "back door" for symbol-based semi-- allegorizing. So, when the duet settles, what Beale gains hermeneutically with one hand he more or less takes away with the other.